Re: [tied] Baltic-Slavic disintegration

--- Alexander Stolbov <astolbov@...> wrote:

> George Knysh wrote:
>
> > GK: What are the arguments against the
> B[ondarikhino] culture
> > being a late Ugrian culture? Its early pottery has
> > strong affinities to the Pit-Comb cultures of
> Eastern
> > Europe usually considered Ugrian (even more
> > specifically, to the P-C cultures close to
> > Karelia)

(AS) The P-C

> pottery typically has a
> sharp bottom (sometimes the form is almost conical).
> In contrast the Bond.
> vessels always have a flat bottom,

*****GK: My source (the section on
Maryanivka-Bondarykha in the "Arkh. Ukr." co-written
by Illinska and Berezanska (the latter one of the
field specialists on Bond.) does say this, but with
the following twist: "The pottery of the early sites,
as we have noted, is very similar to the neolithic
pit-comb ware, though its form (lack of a sharp
bottom) and ornamentation (presence of cord-like
patterns)is later and more developed".******

> Chronological considerations also don't allow as to
> consider local Pit-Comb
> cultures (which late groups lived in the 3rd mill.
> BC) as ancestors of the
> Bond. groups. They appeared in the Dnieper Left Bank
> zone only about 1200 BC
> and substituted there the Srubnaya culture tribes,
> not P-C ones.

******GK: My source contends that Bond. only reached
the forest-steppe in its middle phase (the date is
aproximately the same as yours), where it contacted
(not replaced) with the Zeubna x. (Sabatynivka phase
of the latter). The earliest phase of Bond. was
further north, and it moved as a result of pressure
from the Tshynetsk tribes (indubitably proto-Baltic
these)*******

>
> 2) I know that some (even many) scholars consider
> P-C cultures as
> Finno-Ugric. I can't take this seriously. It's
> impossibly to draw unbroken
> line from them to modern Finnic or Ugric nations.
> But from the "Setchataya
> keramika" cultures it goes smoothly.

******GK: Would this correlate with early FU
borrowings from IIr?*****

However these

> cultures can't be taken
> as descendants of the Pit-Comb cultures. On the most
> territories the latter
> disappear much earlier than the former appear. This
> is just chronology.
> Ethnographical evidences are more demonstrative.
> I can defend this position much stronger than the
> Slavs emergence
> hypothesis.

******GK: I have no particular position here. One
argument for the (possibly) Baltic nature of Bond. is
the suggestion that it is directly linked to the
Yukhnovska Iron Age culture. But not all
archaeologists accept that Y. is Baltic. In any case
it is later assimilated by the Zarubynetska c.*******

>
> > GK: I have doubts that the Zarubynetska c. as
> a
> > whole can be viewed as "East Germanic". It is
> clearly
> > an organic blend of a number of elements (local
> > Milograd/Pidhirtsi) (predominant), Scythian
> (Thrakoid
> > remnant), and Pomorian (esp. in the west). The
> only
> > clearly Germanic component here is the Jastorf
> > culture, which is a minor contribution to the mix.
>
> Just one aspect - the Zarubinetskaya c. was a
> latenized one. Neither Slavs
> nor Sarmats were latenized.

*****GK: See my reply to Richard Wordingham's
query*****

>

The minor Jastorf component seems to be the

> determinative one.

*****GK: Not according to the leading archaeologists
on the Zarubynets'ka. The debate here is between the
preponderance of Pomorian, Milograd, or Scythian
elements. Jatorf is just not a factor, unlike in the
Poieneshti-Lukashevka c. in Moldavia (the
Bastarnians).****

A similar

> situation we can see in the Chernyakhovskaya
> culture.

*****GK: The overwhelming preponderance of Wielbark
(Germanic)elements is incontrovertible in
Chernyakhivska (see B. Mahomedov's definitive 2001
study). There is no comparison whatever to the
exceedingly meager role played by Jastorf in the
Zarubynetska.******

>
> Alexander
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus